Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
SAROJINI AMMA (DIED) (LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED) – Appellant
Versus
PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD – Respondent
RSA Nos. 1125, 1126 of 2004
Decided On : 15-10-2024
Property - Title and Possession - Kerala Land Reforms Act - The court discussed the admissibility of evidence regarding property title, emphasizing that title cannot be determined in summary proceedings and must be adjudicated by civil courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed two suits for injunction and declaration of title over properties claimed to belong to their Tharavad, which were contested by the defendant, asserting better title and possession based on various documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the properties, and the evidence presented by the defendant was not sufficient to establish their claims either.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the plaint schedule properties and whether the lower courts erred in admitting additional evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the title of immovable properties cannot be decided by authorities in summary proceedings and must be adjudicated by civil courts, emphasizing the need for clear identification of property in legal claims.
Result: The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the finding of better title for the defendant but confirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suits.
JUDGMENT :
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. These appeals arise from O.S Nos. 1205/1996 and 1206/1996 on the files of the First Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam. Both the suits were filed on the same day and the parties are the same. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendant is the respondent in these appeals. Since the parties are the same and contentions are almost the same in both the appeals, I dispose of both the appeals together.
2. O.S. No. 1205/1996 is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against trespass and sale. O.S. No. 1206/1996 is a suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaint schedule properties are different in these suits. The Plaint schedule property as amended in O.S. No. 1205/1996 is a Serpent Grove having an extent of 11.4 cents in Sy No. 735/1 in Thiruvankulam village which forms the western part of ‘Kanam Vallayil Dharmadevaparambu”. The Plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1206/1996 is the eastern part of ‘Pandaravaka verumpattam Vallayil Dharmadevaparambu” in Sy No. 735/1 Thiruvankulam village. The basis of derivation claimed with respect to the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1206/1996 as per Exts.A1 and A2 Partition Deeds of the year 1077 & 1091 (ME), respectively, is produced in O.S. No. 1206/1996. The basis of derivation claimed with respect to the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1205/1996 is as per the said Ext.A1.
3. The Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 1206/1996, first as per the judgment and decree dated 26/11/1997 and thereafter dismissed O.S. No. 1205/1996 dated 29/02/2000. The First Appellate Court allowed A.S. No. 88/1998, filed by the defendant setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1206/1996. The First Appellate Court dismissed A.S. No. 240/2000, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1205/1996. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of both the suits.
4. R.S.A. No. 1125/2003 arises from O.S. No. 1206/1996. R.S.A.No. 1126/2004 arises from O.S. No. 1205/1996. The parties are referred acceding to their status before the Trial Court.
5. As per the plaint allegations in both suits, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Vallayil Tharavad, that it was allotted to the share of Nani Amma as per Ext.A1 produced in OS No. 1206/1996; that it was again partitioned as per Ext.A2 produced in OS No. 1206/1996, and the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1206/1996 was allotted to Narayani Amma who has been holding the same until her death in the year 1956; that on the death of Narayani Amma, the property is devolved on her sole legal heir Kunhunni Nair; that he continued to hold the property till his death in 1975 and thereafter the plaintiffs who are the children of Kunhunni Nair derived rights over the property. With respect to the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1206/1996, the plaintiffs claimed that they are the sole owners in possession of the same as per Ext.A2 produced in O.S. No. 1206/1996 and that they had permitted five persons named in the Plaint to put up bunks in the property as licensees on payment of license fees and they have received license fees; and that they are entitled to purchase jenmom rights now vested with the Government by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. With respect to the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1205/1996, the plaintiffs claimed that it is in their possession and management in continuation of their predecessors and that they have been performing all poojas and conducting all ceremonies and festivals at their expense.
6. The cause of action in both the suits is a Publication that appeared in Malayala Manorama daily Newspaper dated06.07.1996 at the instance of the defendant/Palace Administration Board inviting tenders/quotations of the auction sale of 42 cents of lands, which includes the plaint schedule properties.
7. The defendant resisted the suits filing Written Statements contending, inter alia, that the plaint schedule properties never belonged
Title to immovable property must be established through proper evidence in civil courts, and summary proceedings cannot determine such rights.
In a suit for injunction, reliance must be placed on evidence of possession rather than solely on ownership titles. Courts must establish actual possession before granting injunctions.
The party asserting ownership must provide clear evidence of title and possession. Failure to do so resulted in the restoration of the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate ownership or possession over the ancestral property, while defendants proved their title through documented evidence, leading to suit dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
